Poly, Antron or ?
 

What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron
yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?



Foam float better :o) What would the usage be of the material?


/Thomas

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Both do not float very well.
Try to find POLYPORPYLENE!
Do I understand you right, that you want to use it as wing material?
Dan


"Hooked" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron
yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron
yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?



None of them will float a fly intrinsically. The buoyancy properties of
yarn, even polypropylene and some others which are positively buoyant, are
still not enough to overcome the effects of surface tension, unless large
amounts are used. The normal amounts used on flies will not make much
difference at all to the floating properties of normal flies. The only
advantage is that waterproof yarns dry more quickly, ( or don´t actually get
wet to start with), and thus it is easier to refloat such a fly after it has
sunk.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

This might also be of interest;

All dry material like feather, fur, synthetics etc, floats when it is dry.
It is keeping it dry which is the problem.

There are no chemical treatments which will give a fly positive buoyancy.
Most chemical "floatants" are not floatants at all, but waterproofing
agents.

Some of the newer treatment chemicals are hydrophobic. Material treated with
them actually stays dry, and therefore floats.

Some "floatants", rely on the material being soaked with a hydrophobic
material, or at least a material which is immiscible with water. ( Gink,
Paraffin, silicone grease, wax dissolved in various solvents).

Others are hydrophobic in their dry state, ( Watershed etc). The material
thus does not soak up water. The principle is the same, but the dry
materials don´t wash off as easily as the liquid ones.

The specific gravity of the material in use is not the main problem, the
main problem is surface tension.

Cohesive forces between liquid molecules are what cause the phenomenon known
as surface tension. Surface molecules do not have other molecules on all
sides of them, and consequently they cohere ( cohesion = "sticking
together"), more strongly to those with direct contact to them on the
surface. This effect forms a surface "film" which makes it more difficult to
move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely
submerged.

Surface tension is typically measured in dynes/cm, the force in dynes
required to break a film of length 1 cm. Equivalently, it can be stated as
surface energy in ergs per square centimeter. Water at 20°C has a surface
tension of 72.8 dynes/cm compared to 22.3 for ethyl alcohol and 465 for
mercury.

If you wish to hold a fly ( or anything else) "in" , ( as opposed to "on")
the film, then it must have at two entirely separate properties. It requires
positive buoyancy to keep one end floating, and it must also sink at the
other end.

This is further complicated by surface tension. Surface tension in water is
caused as a result of hydrogen bonding. As stated above, water molecules at
the surface of water are surrounded partially by air and partially by water.
These surface molecules are more stable when they are completely surrounded
by liquid, as all their hydrogen bonds are then fullfilled (cohesion). This
is why water tends to have the smallest surface possible, i.e. it has a high
surface tension, in order to maintain the lowest energetic state.

If a solid material, more dense than water is placed on the surface of
water, then what happens, depends on the nature of that material. If the
material is hydrophilic ("water loving") water is attracted to its surface.
This adhesion of water, to the material´s surface, reduces the surface
tension, and causes the object to sink.

If the solid object is hydrophobic ("water fearing"), then water is unable
to coat the surface. Two distinct forces now come into play -- the energy
required to overcome this repulsion, and gravity. If the force of gravity is
strong enough, it will prevail and the object will sink (assuming that the
object has a density greater than water). If gravitational force is less
than the surface tension. then the object will float on the surface of the
water.

Surface tension is what allows insects to walk across the surface, and
enables a needle to float. The critical feature, is is the amount of force
per unit area. If you put a needle into water end-on , instead of sideways,
then the needle will immediately sink.

Adding detergents and other things to water changes these properties
radically. One hundred years ago, it was much easier to float a fly, as
there were many streams which contained no detergents, road run-off., etc
etc.

Displacement is another problem. A material which is less dense than water
( Cork, wood etc etc) displaces it´s weight in water, but continues to
float.
A material which is denser than water, once it has penetrated the film,
displaces its volume! in water, not its weight!

For instance, say you have a concrete bucket anchor in your boat. You throw
the anchor over the side, what happens? The boat rises in the water, as it
is now carrying less weight. The water in the lake ( although of course you
wont notice this ) actually goes down, because the concrete is more dense
than water, and is now displacing its volume, and not its weight.

Hydrophobic polymers which are less dense than water will float because they
stay dry. More importantly, even after being submerged, they will still
float again when placed on the surface film.

Other materials, ( hydrophilic) will not float again after being submerged,
as they are then coated with water, and so overcome surface tension.
Floatants of course are designed to prevent this. They only work properly on
dry materials of course.

There are not many hydrophobic materials available to the fly-dresser. But
there is a range of positively buoyant materials. Cork, expanded
polystyrene, various foams, etc.

In order to float a fly well, a synthetic yarn must be less dense than
water, and also hydrophobic.

Many synthetics are less dense than water when dry, but will actually soak
up water. These are useless on dry flies, unless treated with floatant.

If you want to tie flies using these materials, then test them yourself in
the bath etc. If they float up to the surface after being submerged, they
are less dense than water, and also hydrophobic. ( Although some may soak up
water over time). This is an excellent device for floating emergers etc "IN"
the film. The fly displaces water, but will still not sink, and it has the
advantage of being a more natural presentation.

For flies that you wish to sit "ON" the surface film, it does not really
matter what you use, although the same synthetics will stay dry
indefinitely, even without floatant.

If you use flies like Klinkhammers etc, then you can get them to "float" at
very precise depths in the film. To whit, the body below the film, and the
"post" in the film, by using the right fibres.

Although the density of many fibres is only a little below that of water,
one may still use the positive buoyancy. BUT the fibres MUST! be hydrophobic
as well.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Polypropylene used as the post on a parachute dry fly will add a lot to the
floating ability!
The Fly will float even after some fishes caught without cleaning. Of
course, cleaning and drying makes it even better.
I'm a great fan of these parachute flies tied with polypropylene. The use of
the colour "fuorescent white" makes it visible at dawn, another advantage...
TL,
Dan

"Mike Connor" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron
yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?



None of them will float a fly intrinsically. The buoyancy properties of
yarn, even polypropylene and some others which are positively buoyant, are
still not enough to overcome the effects of surface tension, unless large
amounts are used. The normal amounts used on flies will not make much
difference at all to the floating properties of normal flies. The only
advantage is that waterproof yarns dry more quickly, ( or don´t actually
get
wet to start with), and thus it is easier to refloat such a fly after it
has
sunk.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"fish.iddx.net" wrote in message
...

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
What would you consider to float a fly better? Polyester yarn? Antron
yarn?
Or some other type of yarn?



Foam float better :o) What would the usage be of the material?


Yes, closed cell foam will float better. But I was interested in yarn used
for body material for dry flies.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

None of them will float a fly intrinsically. The buoyancy properties of
yarn, even polypropylene and some others which are positively buoyant, are
still not enough to overcome the effects of surface tension, unless large
amounts are used. The normal amounts used on flies will not make much
difference at all to the floating properties of normal flies. The only
advantage is that waterproof yarns dry more quickly, ( or don´t actually
get
wet to start with), and thus it is easier to refloat such a fly after it
has
sunk.


I was thinking of using the yarn for dry fly bodies, and then treating with
"Water-Shed." But which one, (poly, antron, or another,) has better water
resistant properties?

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
This might also be of interest;

Uhmm...
Yeah. Interesting stuff, even if I didn't understand most of it.

All dry material like feather, fur, synthetics etc, floats when it is dry.
It is keeping it dry which is the problem.

snip

Some "floatants", rely on the material being soaked with a hydrophobic
material, or at least a material which is immiscible with water. ( Gink,
Paraffin, silicone grease, wax dissolved in various solvents).

Others are hydrophobic in their dry state, ( Watershed etc). The material
thus does not soak up water. The principle is the same, but the dry
materials don´t wash off as easily as the liquid ones.

I plan to use "Water-Shed" on my flies. You write that it doesn't wash off
as easily as fly floatant (ie.Gink) How long would it take to wash off if
using a couple drops on say, a size 14 fly using poly yarn? Roughly. I know
there is no given formula. Just interested if you have noticed. Maybe
several hours of being in contact with the water?

The specific gravity of the material in use is not the main problem, the
main problem is surface tension.

This is where you start to get me confused with the scientifc jargon. So...

snip

In order to float a fly well, a synthetic yarn must be less dense than
water, and also hydrophobic.

Many synthetics are less dense than water when dry, but will actually soak
up water. These are useless on dry flies, unless treated with floatant.

If you want to tie flies using these materials, then test them yourself in
the bath etc. If they float up to the surface after being submerged, they
are less dense than water, and also hydrophobic. ( Although some may soak
up
water over time). This is an excellent device for floating emergers etc
"IN"
the film. The fly displaces water, but will still not sink, and it has the
advantage of being a more natural presentation.

For flies that you wish to sit "ON" the surface film, it does not really
matter what you use, although the same synthetics will stay dry
indefinitely, even without floatant.

If you use flies like Klinkhammers etc, then you can get them to "float"
at
very precise depths in the film. To whit, the body below the film, and the
"post" in the film, by using the right fibres.

Tying emergers will be something I'll have to get into real soon as I was
skunked today by having only dries and the fish were interested in something
else. They looked like they were taking off the surface, but I didn't see
any hatch occuring. I figure what ever they were hitting had to be in, or
just under the surface tension.

(Of course I could just stick to fishing for bass and pike, but I would like
to try catching trout. So I have to learn all this stuff.)

Although the density of many fibres is only a little below that of water,
one may still use the positive buoyancy. BUT the fibres MUST! be
hydrophobic
as well.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Daniel M. Handzel" wrote in message
...
Polypropylene used as the post on a parachute dry fly will add a lot to
the
floating ability!
The Fly will float even after some fishes caught without cleaning. Of
course, cleaning and drying makes it even better.
I'm a great fan of these parachute flies tied with polypropylene. The use
of
the colour "fuorescent white" makes it visible at dawn, another
advantage...


While checking out the local fly shop for materials to tie parachutes, it
was suggested to use antron. I believe it was suggested because of it's
light reflecting properties (as in more shine.) Any thoughts about this?

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
SNIP
I was thinking of using the yarn for dry fly bodies, and then treating
with
"Water-Shed." But which one, (poly, antron, or another,) has better water
resistant properties?



This is difficult to say. One has to test the materials.

Pure water has a specific gravity of 1.0 some yarns have a specific
gravity of 0.8 for instance, meaning that they are 20% lighter than water,
and thus buoyant. If they are also waterproof ( hydrophobic), then they
will stay dry and buoyant, even if submerged. ( Meaning they will float up
again to the surface of their own accord).

Anything which allows water to coat it´s surface, or soaks up water, (
hydrophilic), will not float again when submerged, but it may be once again
supported on the surface film when dried off. ( This applies to most
natural materials, feather, fur etc).

The specific gravity of lead for instance, is 11.35. Anything with a
lower specific gravity than water, will float on water, as long as it does
not itself soak up water. Anything with a higher specific gravity than
water, will sink when it penetrates the surface film.

Watershed does not wash off very quickly. I have used flies all day which
had been treated with watershed. These are usually flies with a hare fur
body, or similar natural furs. In my experience, natural furs float better
and longer, especially when treated with watershed.

You might like to look here;
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=198914

It is necessary to understand the functions and properties of the materials
involved in order to obtain optimal results.


TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

snip

Watershed does not wash off very quickly. I have used flies all day which
had been treated with watershed. These are usually flies with a hare fur
body, or similar natural furs. In my experience, natural furs float better
and longer, especially when treated with watershed.

You might like to look here;
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=198914

It is necessary to understand the functions and properties of the
materials
involved in order to obtain optimal results.


Now this is very interesting. At this forum you linked to, the question was
brought up about whether or not the polyester fibers will absorb, or whether
the "Water-Shed" will adhere to the fibers, and be effective.

I guess I'll have to tie up a fly with poly and one with natural fur dubbing
material and see which one floats the longest. Could be a real pain in the
posterior end if they both sank while I was away at work. :-(

Thanks for the input.

PS- Are you at all related to "Gandolf" over there @
outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com ?

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
"Mike Connor" wrote in message
SNIP.


Now this is very interesting. At this forum you linked to, the question
was
brought up about whether or not the polyester fibers will absorb, or
whether
the "Water-Shed" will adhere to the fibers, and be effective.

I guess I'll have to tie up a fly with poly and one with natural fur
dubbing
material and see which one floats the longest. Could be a real pain in the
posterior end if they both sank while I was away at work. :-(

Thanks for the input.

PS- Are you at all related to "Gandolf" over there @
outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com ?



Watershed soaks into natural materials, like fur and feather etc, making
them hydrophobic ( water repellant),when it dries. It does not work quite
as well on some synthetics. You have to try it and see. It also does not
work equally well on all natural materials. Some feathers and furs work
better than others when treated with it.

However, most fur and feather flies pre-treated with watershed, will float
all day. Unless slimed etc. They are also easier to clean ( and re-dress
with "normal" floatant, if required), even after being slimed etc.

The acid test of all these things, is whether a fly will still float after
catching a fish, being "slimed" etc. Fur ( hare fur) bodied flies will do
this. I have caught several fish on the same ( pre treated with watershed)
fly. Merely washing it in the stream, and false casting a little to dry it.
This will not work with flies which have not been pre-treated, as the
material gets soaked, and takes quite a while to dry.

Once materials are soaked, it is either very difficult, or even impossible
to get them to float on the surface film again, as they are immediately
affected by surface tension, and sink.

Watershed keeps the material itself dry, and even when the flies are sunk, a
couple of false casts will flick the water off, and they will float on the
film again.

( The same applies to other floatants, but liquid and paste type floatants
wash off more quickly, and consequently do not keep the fly waterproof,
which it has to be, in order to float on the film for any length of time).

I am not related to Gandolf.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Some of this stuff is quite complex, as it hinges on so many factors. The
specific gravity ( the weight of a material when compared to pure water), is
not the main problem with dry flies. Surface tension is the problem.

It is also not sufficient for materials to be "waterproof", they have to be
actually hydrophobic, as otherwise water will start to creep onto their
surface, which reduces surface tension at that point, and the material will
sink.

Flies with positive buoyancy, ( cork, some foams etc) do not rely on the
surface film to float. They penetrate the surface film, and displace water,
but remain floating because they are less dense than water, ( lower specific
gravity), and float "in" the film, as opposed to "on" it.

These flies also do not require any "floatant", ( waterproofing agent), as
it does not matter whether they get wet or not. They will still float, as a
result of their positive buoyancy, whether they are wet or dry. They do not
rely on the surface film.

Other flies rely solely on the surface film, and will not float once they
penetrate it. If they get wet, they will penetrate the film immediately, and
sink. If they do not get wet, they can be made to float again, by placing
them ( casting!) gently on the film. Floatants are all designed to keep
flies dry, or render them hydrophobic, they have nothing at all to do with
the intrinsic buoyancy of a fly.

There is a common physics experiment in schools, whereby a needle is
greased, and placed carefully on a piece of paper floating in a glass of
water. The paper soon gets wet and sinks. The needle remains floating on
the surface film. The grease ( which is hydrophobic), prevents the needle
becoming coated with water, and so it remains floating on the surface film.
Trying the same thing with a needle which is not greased, will result in the
needle sinking immediately, although the steel is of course "waterproof", it
is not hydrophobic!

Adding a drop of detergent to the water, also causes the greased needle to
sink immediately, as it reduces, or indeed almost entirely removes, surface
tension.

(These detergents are also known as "surfactants", because they affect the
surface energetics of the water in which they are dissolved).

In order to design any fly, the properties of the materials used are of
prime importance. Even good quality stiff hackle which is not hydrophobic,
( or treated with "floatant") is quite useless, as it soaks up water, and
sinks very quickly. Even excessive false casting will not dry such a fly
sufficiently to allow it to float on the film again.

Some plastics are intrinsically hydrophobic, and also intrinsically buoyant
( Polypropylene is one example, although the degree of buoyancy also
depends on the density of the material), other plastics like Nylon are not
hydrophobic, and also not intrinsically buoyant, ( they are heavier than
water to start with).

They can nevertheless be made to float on the surface film, by treating them
with hydrophobic substances. The surface tension supports them. If the
surface tension is reduced, ( because the material gets wet), or removed (
by surfactants like soap, etc), then they sink immediately.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Sinkants" are designed to allow a fly to become wet as quickly as
possible, allowing it to sink. Once it has penetrated the surface film, such
a fly will not sink any faster or further than an untreated one of the same
type, as the sinkant merely allows it to penetrate the surface film, and has
no other effect.

One of my main arguments with Gehrke. He simply did not understand the
physics involved, and continually wrote a load of bull**** on the matter.

Any soap will work prefectly well, there is no need to buy sinkant.

One very good mixture is "Fullers earth" mixed with washing up liquid, and a
drop of glycerine. The soap is the sinkant, the glycerine prevents the
mixture from drying out too quickly, and the Fullers earth is a light
abrasive which will remove "shine" and grease from nylon etc, allowing the
soap to work better.

The best "sinkant" is of course lead or other material incorporated into the
fly.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Mike Connor wrote:

The acid test of all these things, is whether a fly will still float after
catching a fish, being "slimed" etc. Fur ( hare fur) bodied flies will do
this. I have caught several fish on the same ( pre treated with watershed)
fly. Merely washing it in the stream, and false casting a little to dry it.
This will not work with flies which have not been pre-treated, as the
material gets soaked, and takes quite a while to dry.

Once materials are soaked, it is either very difficult, or even impossible
to get them to float on the surface film again, as they are immediately
affected by surface tension, and sink.

That's where Frog's Fanny comes in.

Willi

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
"Sinkants" are designed to allow a fly to become wet as quickly as
possible, allowing it to sink. Once it has penetrated the surface film,
such
a fly will not sink any faster or further than an untreated one of the
same
type, as the sinkant merely allows it to penetrate the surface film, and
has
no other effect.

One of my main arguments with Gehrke. He simply did not understand the
physics involved, and continually wrote a load of bull**** on the matter.

Any soap will work prefectly well, there is no need to buy sinkant.

One very good mixture is "Fullers earth" mixed with washing up liquid, and
a
drop of glycerine. The soap is the sinkant, the glycerine prevents the
mixture from drying out too quickly, and the Fullers earth is a light
abrasive which will remove "shine" and grease from nylon etc, allowing the
soap to work better.

The best "sinkant" is of course lead or other material incorporated into
the
fly.


After reading your previous posts and finally getting a full understanding
of what you are saying, when you mentioned "sincants" I immediately thought
of soap. But I don't think the fish will enjoy flies that taste like
"Palmolive" or "Ivory." I don't know what "sincants" like "Xink" are made
of, but I use it on occasion. Once in a while I'll cast out a wooly-bugger
and for some reason, the marabou tail will not absorb water thereby keeping
the fly floating by it's tail. I will then treat it with the "Xink" and it
will sink.

I never thought that using "Xinc" would make it sink faster or deeper. That
is totally preposterous. I use bead heads, or lead wraps to make my flies
sink faster, thus deeper in a drift.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in
:

the marabou tail will not absorb water thereby keeping
the fly floating by it's tail. I will then treat it with the "Xink"
and it will sink.


Suck it, be careful of the hook.


Steve (not recommended for unhygenic materials, or poorly dyed (unfixed)
materials - "nice purple lips there" ;-)

Poly, Antron or ?
 

the marabou tail will not absorb water thereby keeping
the fly floating by it's tail. I will then treat it with the "Xink"
and it will sink.


Suck it, be careful of the hook.


Exactly! :o)


/Thomas

Poly, Antron or ?
 

From: "fish.iddx.net"

the marabou tail will not absorb water thereby keeping
the fly floating by it's tail. I will then treat it with the "Xink"
and it will sink.

Just hold the fly underwater and work the tail between your thumb and
forefinger. In a few seconds it will be saturated and sink quite nicely. Don't
need no stinking sinkants!.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"George Adams" wrote in message
...

Just hold the fly underwater and work the tail between your thumb and
forefinger. In a few seconds it will be saturated and sink quite nicely.
Don't
need no stinking sinkants!.


Tried that. For some reason, I have a bunch of strung marabou that will not
absorb water readily. I can hold them under water, swish the around and even
work the fibers back and forth in my fingers. They will not absorb water
very well. It's not the whole feather tho. Only several barbs in each tail.

Kind of makes me wish I could find an emerger pattern that would use these
long marabou feathers. The stuff almost acts like CDC. But only from this
one pack of dyed black marabou. Maybe something in the dye? It's not very
often I use un-weighted wooly-buggers anyway. Oh well. When the pack is
gone, I get another. And it won't be a generic pack from the local fly shop
either.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Hooked" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Kind of makes me wish I could find an emerger pattern that would use these
long marabou feathers. The stuff almost acts like CDC. But only from this
one pack of dyed black marabou. Maybe something in the dye? It's not very
often I use un-weighted wooly-buggers anyway. Oh well. When the pack is
gone, I get another. And it won't be a generic pack from the local fly
shop
either.



I have had this problem with marabou as well, and occasionally with other
( mainly waterfowl) feathers . Usually, it is grease or oil on the feathers
which causes the problem. Nowadays I mainly use Arctic fox fur instead of
marabou, but I nevertheless wash it carefully before it goes into my
materials kit. This saves a lot of problems later on.

The fox fur is at least as mobile, and much more robust than the marabou.

If you pre-treat marabou with watershed, it acts almost exactly the same as
CDC. Other feathers ( pheasant aftershaft etc) also work well for this.
There are a lot of useful patterns one can tie using such material.

TL
MC

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

I have had this problem with marabou as well, and occasionally with other
( mainly waterfowl) feathers . Usually, it is grease or oil on the
feathers
which causes the problem. Nowadays I mainly use Arctic fox fur instead of
marabou, but I nevertheless wash it carefully before it goes into my
materials kit. This saves a lot of problems later on.

The fox fur is at least as mobile, and much more robust than the marabou.

If you pre-treat marabou with watershed, it acts almost exactly the same
as
CDC. Other feathers ( pheasant aftershaft etc) also work well for this.
There are a lot of useful patterns one can tie using such material.


I'm not too sure I want to wash these feathers. When I tie with them, my
fingers turn black. I'm thinking that any soap would wash the dye out. I
just put a little "Xink" on them and they sink for me.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Mike Connor wrote:


I have had this problem with marabou as well, and occasionally with other
( mainly waterfowl) feathers . Usually, it is grease or oil on the feathers
which causes the problem. Nowadays I mainly use Arctic fox fur instead of
marabou, but I nevertheless wash it carefully before it goes into my
materials kit. This saves a lot of problems later on.

The fox fur is at least as mobile, and much more robust than the marabou.

If you pre-treat marabou with watershed, it acts almost exactly the same as
CDC. Other feathers ( pheasant aftershaft etc) also work well for this.
There are a lot of useful patterns one can tie using such material.


I think aftershaft feathers have some real fish catching qualities. An
effective, overlooked material.

Willi

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


I think aftershaft feathers have some real fish catching qualities. An
effective, overlooked material.


Not all too long ago, I read a magazine article or somewhere on the www
about using aftershaft feathers for gills on nymphs. I think it was for
stonefly nymphs. I wish I could remember where I read that. I want to check
it out and give it a try. I'll have to check out the back issues of "Fly
Tyer" and look see.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Then they have been badly dyed. If you want to try fixing the dye, put
the
feathers ( try one first), in a pot of very hot water ( about two pints),
with two teaspoons of salt, and a tablespoon of vinegar. This will
usually
"fix" dye quite well. Even if a fair bit of dye comes out the feathers
are
still usable. Assuming of course that thne dye has taken at all!

I'm not too sure the wife would allow this. Using her pots and pans anyway.
I'll give it a try though, after she goes to bed at night.

Poly, Antron or ?
 

Hooked wrote:

"Willi" wrote in message
...


I think aftershaft feathers have some real fish catching qualities. An
effective, overlooked material.



Not all too long ago, I read a magazine article or somewhere on the www
about using aftershaft feathers for gills on nymphs. I think it was for
stonefly nymphs. I wish I could remember where I read that. I want to check
it out and give it a try. I'll have to check out the back issues of "Fly
Tyer" and look see.



I use it on a number of flies. I like it as a wing on emergers, as part
of a soft hackle, a Sparrow pattern, on wet caddis, on an RS2 etc. It's
like mini marabou and gives the fly some action. Because of its size, it
works well even on small flies.

Good stuff.

Willi

Poly, Antron or ?
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...

Hooked wrote:

Not all too long ago, I read a magazine article or somewhere on the www
about using aftershaft feathers for gills on nymphs. I think it was for
stonefly nymphs. I wish I could remember where I read that. I want to
check
it out and give it a try. I'll have to check out the back issues of "Fly
Tyer" and look see.


I use it on a number of flies. I like it as a wing on emergers, as part
of a soft hackle, a Sparrow pattern, on wet caddis, on an RS2 etc. It's
like mini marabou and gives the fly some action. Because of its size, it
works well even on small flies.


I found that article I mentioned. It was in the Summer 2003 issue of Fly
Tyer. Page 64. It's a hex nymph not a stonefly. Same article mentions the
Sparrow. Now when I get around to cleaning up my tying desk from tying bass
worms out of twisted yarn, I'll try tying some of these nymphs. Don't think
I have any of the Bug Skin or Thin Skin, but I'll have something to use as a
substitute.